“In all regularly scheduled classes on
April, 23, faculty… will be encouraged to use class time to explore the meaning
and consequences of the war, considering what special obligations
institutions of learning have to use their resources toward understanding
such conflicts. Instructors are not required to alter their course
content, but where appropriate, faculty are
encouraged to discuss these issues with students in their classes,
recognizing that within our community there will be a wide range of
perspectives.” Excerpt
taken from email to UW community from David B. Thorud
(Acting Provost)
Many,
if not all, of the students in this class will become scientists, computer
scientists or engineers, and many will engage in technical research, or
management of such research. Some may work on weapons-related research and
development. Much of the time spent in all such careers is focused on
solving specific technical problems, an often rewarding and engrossing
enterprise. The aim in 121-3 is that you will learn about some of the
fundamental laws of physics, and how to apply them to solve problems.
Topics that are only touched on, but which are also of great importance,
are the nature of the scientific method, the implications of the fact that
all experiments lead to results with uncertainties, the fact that there
are many things we do not understand, or only poorly understand, and the
broader implications of scientific discoveries. The “day of
reflection” is an opportunity to spend a little more time on these
broader topics.
I
intend to spend the last 20 minutes or so of class time on April 23rd
reading some quotes concerning the broader implications of the scientific
method and scientific discoveries. In particular, what approaches have
scientists and engineers taken when it has been realized that scientific
discoveries have negative as well as positive potential? Classic examples
include the discovery that the energy in the nucleus can be released and
harnessed (as we discussed a little in 121B when we studied special
relativity); and the potentials of genetic engineering.
I
will try and list the quotes I intend to read below, possibly along with
some links. (These are not meant in any way to be exhaustive.)
If
you wish to comment on a quote, or read one that you have found, or bring
to our attention an interesting article or book, please let me know. Given
that this is a large class, it will be hard to have a discussion, so I
prefer to know the essence of comments in advance. I will also continue
reading short quotes in future classes if this seems appropriate.
Just
to be clear, I do not intend for this to be a discussion about the War in Iraq, a subject on which I have no expertise, and
which is not directly related to the material in our class.
Quotes concerning the scientific method and the community of scientists
Richard
Feynman on scientific knowledge. “Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of various degrees of
certainty. Some of them are most unsure. Some of them are more nearly
sure, but none of them is absolutely certain. In science, we take it for
granted that it is perfectly possible to live and not know. It is not
evident that most people realize that it’s true.” (quoted
from “The Beat of a Different Drum”, J. Mehra,
Oxford UP, p.551-2)
More
from Feynman on the obligations of scientists. Our responsibility “as scientists, as citizens of a
democracy, is to know the great value of a satisfactory philosophy of
ignorance, the great progress that is the fruit of freedom of thought, to
proclaim the value of this freedom, to teach how to doubt is not to be
feared but to be welcomed and discussed, and to demand this freedom is our
duty to all coming generations.” (Mehra,
p. 553)
Stan
Ulam was one of the “fathers of the H-bomb”.
The following concerns the all encompassing nature of mathematics, which
holds true also, I think, for many other scientific work. “In many cases, mathematics is an
escape from reality. The mathematician finds his own monastic niche and
happiness in pursuits that are disconnected from external affairs. Some
practice it as if using a drug. Chess sometimes plays a similar role. In
their unhappiness over the events of this world, some immerse themselves
in a kind of self-sufficiency in mathematics. (Some have engaged in it for
this reason alone.)“ (“Adventures
of a Mathematician”, Stanislaus Ulam (New
York 1976).)
Quotes concerning atomic weapons by those involved in building them
The
discoveries in nuclear physics in the 1930’s, and particular that of
nuclear fission in 1939, led rapidly to the realization that one might be
able to build nuclear reactors and bombs. (For reasons related to public
relations, nuclear fission energy came to be called “atomic energy”,
which is a confusing term, but one that we are stuck with.). For example, Enrico Fermi, when at Columbia University, NY, in 1939, said “You realize that one small fission bomb
could destroy most of what you see outside?” (quoted in “Niels
Bohr’s Times”, A. Pais, Oxford Univ.
Press; p467).
In
1939 Albert Einstein sent a letter to President Roosevelt urging him to
start an effort to build an atomic weapon. Einstein was very worried that German
scientists were already doing this. After the World War II, it was
discovered that the German effort did not proceed very far or very fast,
and Einstein said “Had I known
that the Germans would not succeed in producing an atomic bomb, I would
not have lifted a finger.” (“Niels
Bohr’s Times”, p492).
Parenthetically, it is of interest that, according to Pais,
Einstein’s letter had no impact on Roosevelt. This conclusion differs from that given by
Edward Teller in an interview quoted below. Roosevelt’s decision to start the project to build
an atomic bomb was made two years later, in 1941, 2 months prior to America entering the war.
After
the atomic bombs had been dropped on Hiroshima (August 6, 1945) and
Nagasaki (August 9, 1945), Niels Bohr wrote an
article entitled “Science and Society” for the Times of
London, in which he argued for an “open world”, and in which
he said: “The formidable pwer of destruction which has come within reach of man
may become a mortal menace unless human society can adjust itself to the
exigencies of the situation. Civilization is presented with a challenge
more serious perhaps than ever before…We have reached the stage
where the degree of security offered to the citizens of a nation by
collective defense measures is entirely insufficient..
No control can be effective without free access to full scientific
information and the granting of the opportunity of international
supervision of all undertakings which, unless regulated, might become a
source of disaster…The contribution which an agreement about this
vital matter would make… can hardly be exaggerated.”(Pais,
p504)
In
October, 1945, Robert Oppenheimer, who was director of the Los Alamos
Laboratories during the development of atomic weapons, was awarded a
certificate by the Secretary of War “for valuable services rendered to the Nation on work essential to
the production of the Atomic Bomb, thereby contributing materially to the
successful conclusion of World War II”. Oppenheimer responded
with the following words “It
is with appreciation…that I accept this…, for the men and
women whose work and whose hearts have made it. It is our hope that in
years to come we may look at this scroll, and all that it signifies, with
pride.” “Today that pride must be tempered with a profound
concern. If atomic bombs are to be added as new weapons to the arsenals of
a warring world, or to the arsenals of nations preparing for war, then the
time will come whenmankind will
curse the names of Los Alamos and Hiroshima.” (quoted from “Weapons and
Hope”, Freeman Dyson, Harper and Row, p.16)
Another
quote along the same lines is from an annex to a 1949 report from the
Advisory Committee to the US Atomic Energy Commission (now Department of
Energy) . The issue was whether to develop the
fusion bomb (or “hydrogen bomb”). Enrico
Fermi and Isidor Rabi said “The fact that no limits exist to the
destructiveness of this weapon makes its very existence and the knowledge
of its construction a danger to humanity as a whole. It is necessarily an
evil thing considered in any light. For these reasons we believe it
important for the President of the United
States to tell the American public, and
the world, that we think it wrong on fundamental ethical principles to
initiate a program of development of such a weapon…” (Dyson, p.32)
Nevertheless,
President Truman decided to go ahead with the development of the hydrogen
bomb, in large part because of fears that the Soviet Union was doing so. There is a very interesting
web site, containing transcripts from a PBS documentary concerning
atomic weapons. The next two quotes are taken from this transcript. The
Soviet weapons lab was, in the early 1950’s, making progress on
their design for an H-bomb, while the US effort at Los Alamos was in trouble. It is interesting to listen to
the thoughts of some of the Soviet physicists who were involved. The
effort was taking place at a top-secret facility, on the grounds of a
former monastery.
One
of the Soviet Physicists, German A. Goncharov,
describes the situation: “The
conditions were fine, but what struck me as very unpleasant and weighed
heavily on me for the first year was the realization that we were not
allowed to leave the place even for a vacation. So, even during my
vacations I couldn’t visit my parents and relatives, you see? That
was a heavy burden and it simply tormented me at first. But the contact
with Sakharov, Tamm, Zel’dovich quickly
relieved some of the tension. I got involved in interesting, absorbing
work.”
Sakharov, Tamm and Zel’dovich
are famous physicists very well known for other research. Sakharov later became a leading dissident. But here is
how he describes his mindset at the time:"We
saw ourselves at the center of a great enterprise on which colossal resources
were being expanded. We never questioned the vital importance of the work.
And there were no distractions. The rest of the world was far, far away,
somewhere beyond the two barbed wire fences."
In
the US, one of the leading proponents of building
weapons when they are technologically feasible has been Edward Teller. He
was the other “father” of the H-bomb, and later of President
Reagan’s Strategic Defense (or “Star Wars”) Initiative.
A long interview with Teller can be found on this web site.
The following are some quotes concerning Teller’s motivations.
“No one could have had a
greater influence on me than Hitler......who made
it entirely clear to me that one could not ignore politics, and very
particularly one could not ignore the worst evils in politics.” (Teller, who was Jewish, emigrated from Germany to the US around the time of Hitler’s rise to power.)
Upon
hearing from L. Szilard of the discovery that
made it clear that an atomic weapon was possible, Teller realized that “the possibility that Hitler
would get there first was entirely reality, because fission actually was
discovered in Berlin in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute.”
Szilard
and Teller went to Princeton to urge Einstein to write the letter, mentioned
above, to President Roosevelt. Later, in 1941, Teller was invited to a
conference at which President Roosevelt spoke about atomic weapons.
Teller recalls: “He
talked about the fact that the time to fly from Europe to the
American continent was not so great. That small nations are not secure,
neither are big ones. That the scientists may be blamed for the horrible
things that are happening but, said Roosevelt, "I am a pacifist,
and you my friends are pacifists, but I am telling you, if you are not
going to work on the instruments of war, freedom will be lost
everywhere."
Teller
sums up, returning to the subject of the Strategic Defense Initiative:
“I
want to come back at the very end to what I have learned in life. That the
future is uncertain. That indeed, what we say, what we do in each
individual case, may move the whole world. And that puts an exceptional
responsibility on our shoulders. We now know for a fact that there are
good ways of defense against all kinds of rockets. The computer can now
perform a billion individual computing acts per second,
that is the reason why. The difficult task of preventing a rocket
from reaching us, can be accomplished. There is
every reason to believe that we can hit a bullet by a bullet. And that
high technology, instead of merely producing bigger bangs, can produce now
a defense by accuracy against the most dangerous kinds of attack.”
“As I told you, the future is
uncertain. This means a lot of responsibility for all of us. I have been
working on subjects whose development I firmly believe was unavoidable:
atomic energy, atomic explosions, nuclear explosions, fusion research. No
one could have prevented its coming. It came slowly and ineffectually in Germany because
Heisenberg was, I realize now, completely and deeply opposed to it under
the Nazis, even though he was a good German. In the Soviet
Union, all this came without resistance. The answer is
so obvious that I hardly dare to ask this question: What would have
happened if Stalin got the hydrogen bomb, and we did not?” (It is a matter of great controversy whether
Heisenberg opposed and somehow thwarted the German atomic bomb project, or
whether the effort simply failed.)
“I think I had a little
influence and, if I claim credit for anything, I think I should not claim
credit for knowledge, but for courage. It was not easy to contradict the
great majority of the scientists who were my only friends in a new country.”